Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Valuation Disputes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press York County board over valuations, pheasant operations and depreciation methods
Summary
Multiple residents told the Board of Equalization that nearby pheasant production and how the assessor classifies agricultural buildings have depressed property values; the board asked staff to review zoning setbacks, animal‑unit definitions and valuation comparables.
Several residents and property owners used the Board of Equalization hearing to press the county on how recent assessments treat agricultural and specialty‑animal operations and aging farm structures.
Randy Collingham told the board his neighbor is building a large pheasant operation and argued it has reduced his home's marketability and valuation. "This year, there's gonna be 1,400,000 of them. In 2 years, he plans on 3,000,000," Collingham said, adding that the county zoning and setback rules did not appear to address pheasant farms in the same way they address other livestock. He asked the board to consider that nuisance and odor when reviewing his protest.
Board members and staff discussed whether pheasants are captured by the county's animal‑unit rules and what setback thresholds apply. Kurt (staff) said state and county rules distinguish confined animal units and that setbacks generally kick in at higher animal‑unit thresholds: "For pheasant state counts... you need 300 animal units to qualify for setbacks," he told the panel, and agreed to follow up with zoning staff on classifications and potential enforcement or code changes.
Commercial owners also raised valuation disputes. Steve Clude, who asked the board to lower an assessment on a recently completed shipping/receiving building, said construction costs and a lack of local comparables made the assessor's higher figure hard to justify. "We spent under $3,000,000," Clude said; staff explained they used available comparables from larger markets and the department's construction‑cost tables but offered to supply documentation and additional comparable analysis.
On valuation methodology, board members questioned the practice of moving older farm structures from 'sound value' (historic, frozen entries) to 'calculated value' (which allows depreciation and periodic market adjustments). One member said switching a deteriorating hog confinement to calculated value mid‑life can produce artificially high assessed values compared with economic reality; staff said they would compile past comparables, building‑life estimates, and obsolescence factors and report back.
What happens next: staff committed to researching zoning and animal‑unit definitions related to game birds, to provide evidence and comparables for contested commercial parcels, and to return with clarifications on how the county applies depreciation and obsolescence to older agricultural buildings. Several owners were told change‑of‑value notices would follow the board's actions.
